Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)989
1. In these appeals, question of taxability of compensation enhanced by Courts, after it was awarded by Collector, under the Land Acquisition Act is involved. The question has been referred for consideration of Special Bench.The regular Bench while hearing appeal of Shri Om Prakash (HUF) found that different Benches of Tribunal, at different places, are interpreting Section 45(5) of IT Act inserted by Finance Act, 1987 differently and there is a divergence of opinion on the issue. Some Benches have held that amendment and introduction of Sub-section (5) of Section 45 has not made any difference to the application of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. whereas other Benches have held above decision is no more applicable and enhanced compensation awarded by Courts is liable to be taxed in the year of receipt. Details of cases in which divergent opinions have been expressed are listed in paras 3 and 4 of order of ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1997]89CompCas292(Delhi)
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 56 of 1997 and 57 of 1997 are filed by the Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Bari Doab Bank Ltd., respectively. L.P.A. No. 56 of 1997 is against the judgment of the learned single judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 4046 of 1996 filed by the Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd., while L.P.A. No. 57 of 1997 is against the judgment of the learned single judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3885 of 1996 filed by the Bari Doab Bank Ltd. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition after considering the common questions of law arising in the cases (see p. 292 supra). 2. In both the writ petitions, the proceedings have been initiated by the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter called 'the RBI') under section 45(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), before the Government of India seeking an amalgamation of the Punjab Co-operative Bank with the Oriental Bank of Commerce (a nationalised bank,) and the Bari ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996(38)DRJ51
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) Plaintiffs have filed the suits for injunction. (2) I.A. 3420/93 in Suit No. 708/93 by the plaintiffs against the defendant restraining the defendant from using the mark of the plaintiffs. I have to give a brief account of the case of the plaintiffs because this is not an usual case where owner of a trade mark claims some relief against a third party who sought to interfere with the use of the trade mark of the plaintiffs. (3) The first plaintiff Synthes Ag Chur is a Company incorporated in Switzerland. Mr. R.J. Hartmann is the constituted attorney. Second plaintiff Mathys Limited Bettlach is also represented by Mr. R.J. Hartmann, who is the constituted attorney. After referring to the history of the development of components implants and instruments for the modern bone surgery the plaintiffs have stated in para 7 in the following terms :- 'THE plaintiff No. I is the proprietor of the trademark AO/ASIF and a mark consisting of a device with the alphabet 'A' placed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on : February 08, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on :February 21, 2013 FAO(OS) 364/2012 TATA MOTORS LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Mr.Arush Khanna, Ms.Jaishree Shukla, Advocates. versus JSC VTB BANK . ...Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Advocate. AND FAO(OS) 393/2012 TATA MOTORS LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Mr.Arush Khanna, Ms.Jaishree Shukla, Advocates. versus JSC VTB BANK ....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Advocate. AND FAO(OS) 394/2012 TATA MOTORS LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Mr.Arush Khanna, Ms.Jaishree Shukla, Advocates. versus JSC VTB BANK ....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate instructed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on : February 08, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on :February 21, 2013 FAO(OS) 364/2012 TATA MOTORS LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Mr.Arush Khanna, Ms.Jaishree Shukla, Advocates. versus JSC VTB BANK . ...Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Advocate. AND FAO(OS) 393/2012 TATA MOTORS LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Mr.Arush Khanna, Ms.Jaishree Shukla, Advocates. versus JSC VTB BANK ....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Advocate. AND FAO(OS) 394/2012 TATA MOTORS LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Mr.Arush Khanna, Ms.Jaishree Shukla, Advocates. versus JSC VTB BANK ....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate instructed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on : February 08, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on :February 21, 2013 FAO(OS) 364/2012 TATA MOTORS LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Mr.Arush Khanna, Ms.Jaishree Shukla, Advocates. versus JSC VTB BANK . ...Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Advocate. AND FAO(OS) 393/2012 TATA MOTORS LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Mr.Arush Khanna, Ms.Jaishree Shukla, Advocates. versus JSC VTB BANK ....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Advocate. AND FAO(OS) 394/2012 TATA MOTORS LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Mr.Arush Khanna, Ms.Jaishree Shukla, Advocates. versus JSC VTB BANK ....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate instructed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellants : six in number, instituted CS(OS) No.2281/2006 impleading the nine respondents as defendants Pleading that the decree for declaration and perpetual injunction arose out of malicious acts of defendant No.7 : Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt.Ltd. in selling shares of defendant No.8 : M/s Blue Coast Hotels and Resorts Ltd. held by the plaintiffs and pledged with defendant No.7 as security for inter-corporate deposits made by defendant No.7 with defendant No.9 : M/s Morepen Laboratories Ltd. Defendants No. 5 and 6 were stated to be the entities to whom the shares were sold initially and defendants No.1 to 4 were the entities to whom defendants No.5 and 6 sold the shares. 2. The suit as also IA No.13721/2006 (under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC), IA No.14158/2006 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC), CCP(O) No.57/2007, IA No.291/2007 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC), IA No.1922/2007 (under Order 12 Rule 12 and 14 CPC), IA No.1389/2008 (under Section 47 CPC) and IA No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :7. h December, 2018 Date of decision :1. t February, 2019 CS (OS) 3121/2011 & I.A. 8178/2017 SUJAN MOHINDER CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANOTHER ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Prashant Mehta, Ms. Nattasha Garg, Mr. Alok Tripathi, Mr. Harsh Kumar and Ms. Aashima Advocates. (M:9654998650) Singhal, versus MOHINDER KAUR AND OTHERS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal and Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Advocates for D-1, 2 & 4 to 8. (M:9810005698) AND CS(OS) 558/2014 MANINDER SINGH MAKER AND ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mrs. Kajal Chandra, Mrs. Prerna Chopra and Mr. Viren Kapur, Advocates for P-1. (M:9810133536) Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Prashant Mehta, Ms. Nattasha Garg, Mr. Alok Tripathi, Mr. Harsh Kumar and Ms. Aashima Singhal, Advocates. versus AJIT SINGH MAKER AND ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal and Mr. Sudarshan Ranjan, Advocates for D- 1, 2 & 4 to 8. (M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :7. h December, 2018 Date of decision :1. t February, 2019 CS (OS) 3121/2011 & I.A. 8178/2017 SUJAN MOHINDER CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANOTHER ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Prashant Mehta, Ms. Nattasha Garg, Mr. Alok Tripathi, Mr. Harsh Kumar and Ms. Aashima Advocates. (M:9654998650) Singhal, versus MOHINDER KAUR AND OTHERS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal and Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Advocates for D-1, 2 & 4 to 8. (M:9810005698) AND CS(OS) 558/2014 MANINDER SINGH MAKER AND ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mrs. Kajal Chandra, Mrs. Prerna Chopra and Mr. Viren Kapur, Advocates for P-1. (M:9810133536) Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Prashant Mehta, Ms. Nattasha Garg, Mr. Alok Tripathi, Mr. Harsh Kumar and Ms. Aashima Singhal, Advocates. versus AJIT SINGH MAKER AND ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal and Mr. Sudarshan Ranjan, Advocates for D- 1, 2 & 4 to 8. (M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi598
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) Willcox Buckwell India Ltd., a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as the Transferor Company), incorporated under the Companies Act, has prayed for sanctioning of the Scheme of Amalgamation, which has been duly resolved by it with the Larsen & Toubro Limited, another public limited company (hereinafter referred to as the Transferee Company), on the terms and conditions mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Petition (C.P. 29/71). The same is opposed by the Central Government to which notice went under Section 391 of the Companies Act; the labour union of the. Transferor Company has not opposed the amalgamation as such but only a certain amendment sought for in Company Application No. 177 of 197.1. (2) The transferee Company has an Authorised Capital of Rs. 5,00,00,000 divided into 20,000, 5% Free of Tax Preference Shares of Rs. 100.00 each and 48,00,000 Equity Shares of Rs. 10.00 each. The Issued, Subscribed and Paid up capital of the Trans- feree Company is ...
Tag this Judgment!